Re: [Entmib] Entity MIB v3

Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Tue, 30 November 2004 13:19 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15929 for <entmib-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:19:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CZ7ra-0002rz-SU; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:16:14 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CZ7lo-0001lX-Dr for entmib@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:10:16 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA15261 for <entmib@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:10:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tm-gw.cictr.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CZ7qu-00036b-GN for entmib@ietf.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:15:33 -0500
Received: from [24.61.30.237] (account margaret HELO [192.168.2.2]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 210006; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:03:35 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06200729bdd21d2c5fa4@[192.168.2.2]>
In-Reply-To: <20041130112409.GE2823@james>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20041104112435.02e10e70@fedex.cisco.com> <p06200720bdd18dd1c671@[192.168.2.2]> <20041130112409.GE2823@james>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 08:09:56 -0500
To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Subject: Re: [Entmib] Entity MIB v3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Cc: entmib@ietf.org, kaj@research.telcordia.com, Andy Bierman <abierman@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: entmib@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Entity MIB WG <entmib.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:entmib@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib>, <mailto:entmib-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: entmib-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: entmib-bounces@ietf.org

At 12:24 PM +0100 11/30/04, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>I suggest to add language to entPhysicalMfgDate which says that there
>is a default value in case the manufacturing date is unknown:
>
>	The value '0000000000000000'H is returned if the manufacturing
>	date of the entity in unknown.
>
>I don't think we need to constrain this object to FRUs.

This seems reasonable to me.

>I would love to see Kaj starting to write up the CLIE code URN spec
>since this was the major driving force for this addition. I this
>does not happen, then dropping these objects (even though I believe
>we now have a viable solution) might be a logical conclusion.

The Entity MIB update has been hanging out in various nebulous states 
quite literally for _years_.  This WG has reached a level of 
delay/inaction that is appalling (for which I accept some of the 
blame), we seem to placing theory above practice, and we have a 
penchant for finding new rat-holes...

Some symptoms of our current disease include:

- We have continuously had 4-7 issues open with the Entity State MIB 
for over a year.  We agreed to the resolution of all 7 outstanding 
issues in August, only to open 4 or 5 more when we tried to do a 
final check that those 7 had been address correctly.  When does this 
stop?  Is there anyone who actually wants to see this MIB get 
published (besides me and Sharon)?  Is anyone implementing it?   What 
is the driver to finish this work?

- We added deprecated objects back into the Entity MIB, preventing it 
from going to DS, because those objects are purported to be essential 
to the SNMP information model.  But, as far as we can tell, NO ONE 
HAS _EVER_ IMPLEMENTED THOSE OBJECTS!!  How essential could they 
really be if they don't actually exist in the real world?

- Accepting the consensus of the group, Andy agreed to produce a new 
version of the Entity MIB with the objects un-deprecated that could 
recycle at PS.  Then, people decided that we should add a new set of 
objects to the MIB.  Several people spoke out that these objects were 
important to add, but no one responded for almost a month when Andy 
asked for help defining the objects, not even the person who first 
proposed them.

What am I supposed to do?  Bert periodically threatens to shut the 
group down because we aren't making progress, and I keep putting him 
off because we are one or two months away from completion.  How long 
can this go on?  Should I just say "okay" next time he asks?

I do understand the desire to add this feature to the MIB, but I 
think that we are suffering from terminal mission creep. AFAICT, 
there is no reason not to publish an update to the Entity MIB now 
(without the new, poorly specified objects) and to later publish an 
extension and/or an update that adds these objects if/when anyone 
cares enough to actually do the work.

What do others think?

Margaret




_______________________________________________
Entmib mailing list
Entmib@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/entmib